Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

How would the op know when many of us can and do edit in every category in ODP?

Click to expand...

I think categories that have editors, that have ample time and don't have that many categories to edit tend to be more up to date vs those that don't. I must admit, I'm only an editor of two categories and I have alot of free time to edit, look for other sites for inclusion and view submissions almost on a daily basis. some categories do not have this luxury and the process may be slower.

This is apropos of no particular post, but I just wanted to make the point that it would save everyone a lot of time and (on the part of webmasters) a lot of needless anxiety, if site suggestions were limited to those sites which do actually meet the Selection Criteria. At least then the editors would have access to useful resources when they reviewed suggestions, and the webmaster would also be sure that the non-listing of his site was simply because no volunteer had yet reviewed it.

By suggesting sites which do not meet the Selection Criteria (particularly if they are suggested over and over again), the webmaster is not only wasting everyone's time, and doing themselves a disservice, but making it harder for editors to find the useful sites among all the rubbish. It seems obvious, but apparently isn't.

22 months after submitting my logs showed a visit from DMOZ - an editor I assumed (read hoped!) who looked at a grand total of 1 page in under a second and has not been seen since. I guess I was being over-optimistic because 2 months later I am still not listed.

In those 22 months the category has been updated every few months and the number of listings slowly reduced from 99 to 82.

No offence to dmoz or their editors but its highly over rated...

Click to expand...

As a directory for general use then it is indeed highly over rated - it is no better or worse than the majority and, IMO, many listing descriptions are often incredibly poor and many sites actually listed are rubbish. But that is not where its value lies.

It seems obvious, but apparently isn't.

Click to expand...

Not "apparently", just not obvious at all. Following on from my comments above, if a webmaster looks at some of the crap sites listed and compares to his own that is not listed after years, even when it does seem to meet all the criteria, then it is extremely hard to understand what DMOZ want. It is not anxiety but frustration.

Possibly the single most infuriating thing about DMOZ is the fact they do not notify the result of a submission. It is quite ridiculous - anybody can dowload a free directory script that includes an auto-responder, why does DMOZ not have one? Now, that really would "save everyone a lot of time and ..... needless anxiety."

Possibly the single most infuriating thing about DMOZ is the fact they do not notify the result of a submission. It is quite ridiculous - anybody can dowload a free directory script that includes an auto-responder, why does DMOZ not have one? Now, that really would "save everyone a lot of time and ..... needless anxiety."

Click to expand...

Oh I wish.

Yes we send out a bland email that a site has been rejected and list all the possible reasons for that. Have you seen the flack we get for doing that with editor applications? You can read them on here...which reason was it...why don't you tell me what you want...it is impossible to be an editor.

The DMOZ community would be blitzed with emails complaining when a site was rejected and every time we refused to spend time giving answers we would be told it was really because we were corrupt etc etc etc.

Just see it like this, you offer a site and at some point an editor will review it for possible listing. But the editors do this as a hobby, we do not offer nor give any guarantees that a site will be reviewed in 6 minutes or 6 years. Sorry we are not here to deal with the submissions Q, we are here to build the largest human edited directory of categorised sites. That will be done partly from suggestions and partly from sites an editor finds for themselves. We build a directory for the surfer who wants a categorised directory, not for webmasters to get their site seen. If you want to be seen and quickly pay the money to the likes of Best of the Web. But we are not a commercial directory, we list where editors want to work, sorry but that is the model, so submit and forget and if you are desperate for a fast listing go find a paid directory, where they promise to review your site in x minutes and list it, because you paid them

If I was a punter and looking for something, which would I prefer?
A directory that lists sites because the directory has been paid to list them?
Or
A directory that lists sites because they have unique content and listed by volunteers?
I know which I would choose,....... you...????

Meaningless. It could have been a volunteer editor, of course, but just as likely a link-checking tool. Even if it were an editor, they may have been undertaking some task completely unrelated to a specific category, so they might not even have been looking at whether or not your site was listable.
In other words, you cannot draw any conclusions at all.